FDL license

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

I don't understand the FDL license in that it asks the author to place
the license in the document.

"To use this License in a document you have  written, include a copy
of the License in the document".

Some projects may have multiple documents that could be unrelated to
each other. Do each of these FDL documents get a their own license
copy? And what if these documents are smaller than the license itself?
--
Nicodemo

[Yavor Doganov-3]

Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:
> I don't understand the FDL license in that it asks the author to
> place the license in the document.

Yes, this requirement exists because the license allows distribution
of opaque copies.  For example, I may print out a manual and hand it
to you in the pub.  The recipient should know his rights.

> Some projects may have multiple documents that could be unrelated to
> each other.

Right, there are plenty examples.

> Do each of these FDL documents get a their own license copy?

Usually there is one copy of the license in the package, and it gets
included with the @include Texinfo command.  Other documentation
formats probably have similar feature.

> And what if these documents are smaller than the license itself?

Depends.  For manpages, it is OK to ship one manpage with the FDL text
and link to it from the other manpages.  I guess this technique is
applicable in other situations, too.

[Karl Berry]

    > And what if these documents are smaller than the license itself?

That doesn't matter, as such.  Possibly the FDL should not be used for
such small documents, but if it is used, the requirements should be
obeyed ... but the requirement to include the license text is not
absolute.  See below.

    Depends.  For manpages, it is OK to ship one manpage with the FDL text
    and link to it from the other manpages.  I guess this technique is
    applicable in other situations, too.

There are no special exceptions for man pages, as such.

What there is in this regard is a provision in the FDL about
"Collections of documents".  Here is what the license says:

  COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS

  You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents
  released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this
  License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in
  the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for
  verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.


Thus, it is acceptable for several documents in a given package, whether
man pages, Texinfo manuals, or whatever else, to say that the license is
given in some other file.  For instance, the @copying block for
a Texinfo manual could look like this:

@copying
This manual is for ...

Copyright @copyright{} ... 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

@quotation
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections [...]

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
Documentation License' in the Texinfo manual.

[...]

This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
Documentation License.  If you want to distribute this document
separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.
@end copying


Hope this helps,
Karl